DEMAND FOR MONEY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19932, 28 April 1928, Page 13

DEMAND FOR MONEY.

RATANA "COURT" DOCUMENT. SEQUEL BEFORE MAGISTRATE. WARNING GIVEN TO MAORIS. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OVjN CORRESPONDENT.] RAETIHI. Friday. A charge of sending a document likely to mislead si person ignorant of the law, as it would appear that the said document came from a court of justice, was preferred against Puke lakau and Maori Wharehoka, in the.Raetihi Magistrate's Court yesterday. In a letter certain allegations were made against a Maori married woman, and she was requested to send £5 in payment. She refused to send the amount and received further demands. Eventually she received a document in the form of a summons, asking for £lO. Defendants admitted sending the letters and pleaded not guilty. The woman concerned said' she received the first letter by personal delivery. She thought the document was to do with Rat ana's Court. She knew it was not a document from a court of justice, and she informed the police because she wished to find out if it was any good or not. Maori Wharehoka said he sent the letter because he was chairman of Ratana's committee. When the woman got the letter she should have gone to Jerusalem and appeared before the council. Her case was judged, but she was not there. The judgment was sent on to her. The woman had herself to blame for she belonged to the Ratana movement and should have obeved the rules.

L. A. Eastman, in evidence, said the Maori council which deals with alleged wrong actions of members of the R-itana movement had dealt with the case of complainant. A list of moral rules was printed in the native tongue, and a copy given to each member of the Ratana community. They were expected to obey the rules. In the present instance the council was only following out its usual custom.

The magistrate said he would dismiss the information. He wished the parties concerned to clearly understand that in this country there was only the law of New Zealand. The law of Ratana was not Ihe law of this country. It was an offence to send any person a document likely to cause a person who was ignorant of the law to suppose that such document has lieen issued by any Judge or Court. The document concerned could not, in his opinion, lead any person to suppose that it came from a Court. The man who signed the document had no legal authority to do so, and the Ratana Court had no standing in this country,. It was a good thing for defendants no seals had been used.